>> we've got one democratic senator who is going to try. he joins us tonight. after midnight eastern time, tuesday, that means the deadline on that day, tuesday, is when the government has to reunite the youngest migrants separated from their moms and dads. by all indications they are going to miss the deadline.

the question becomes why? why can't the administration get these kids back to their families. are they really trying? plus we are awaiting the rescues of the final five kids trapped inside that cave in tie land. we are on scene as crews are racing to beat a monsoon. what do you say? let's get after it. 12 days after justin kennedy announced his retirement, president trump announced the person he would like to replace them. he picked a man named brett kavanaugh who checks a lot of boxes for the kerve active

right. the first question is there is the can and there is the should. what can you do, you know, god bless senator mccain, hopefully he's fighting back his adversary now. but if he doesn't vote, it's 50-49. in the republicans hold ranks it's over. >> well, searchly in the end that would be the case. it's over. including the healthcare bill. we succeeded mostly in protecting it. apart from some of the other things that are going on. but in this case, there is going to be a lot we are going to learn in the coming days, and some of the issues that are already being identified are really massive. this is a nominee who believes in an enormously expansive of

precedential power. more appropriate for a kingdom and a king >> you are speaking specifically not about a decision, which kavanaugh gives you 300 some odd cases that he's decided, plenty to come through. but in 2009, he wrote an article for a minnesota law review piece where he said, presidents should not during their term be -- be exposed to legal, civil, criminal, any type of process, which would mean something like being compelled to testify by mueller. >> yes, it means that there would never have been water gate, for example, because the investigation, he doesn't think the investigation -- >> he says impeach him if you have a problem, don't go this ro route. >> the remedy for misbehavior lies with congress not the courts. >> he feels that the president should be able to fire special prosecutor. and he has a very expansive belief that the president can basically ignore laws that the president doesn't agree with.

>> you think that is why trump picked him? >> i think this must have had a huge factor, because here we are in an extraordinary moment in american history, where we have a president who is under investigation for possible collaboration with an enemy, russia, undermining the very foundation of america, elections. and so to have that president this moment be able to have this enormous conflict of interest, and choose who might sit on the bench on issues like can the president pardon himself? can the president fire a special prosecutor? this is a moment that should not happen. that we should postpone this consideration of his nominee, until he has cleared -- until he the president is cleared of this investigation. >> unless mcconnell wants to postpone, is there any way you could make that happen? >> well, no, in the end, there is -- there is things we can certainly be very careful with our research, but make sure that there is as much going on in the

judiciary committee as possible, but in the end the majority can control the body. >> the senator in charge of how much time and how much paper you good get to look at is senator grassly, he can say this is how much time you get, this is how much paper we are going to allow. he's going to have a strong hand there, as well, yes? >> that's right. absolutely. >> it's set up against you here. >> well, it's set up so that if -- as you put it if the republicans hold rank. but there may be republicans who know that the president has said he would nominate only a justice who would strike down row versus wade. there may be republicans who are concerned about this nominee's opinions in terms of being anti-worker, and anti-consumer, anti-aca, and so forth. there is a lot of material there that is really about the powerful versus the people. and after all, we were founded as a we the people republic. >> so when you look at some of

those specific issues, roe v. wade looms large. i don't know that kavanaugh looking at his cases so far has given you much to work with there. when he was up to be a circuit court judge, he said that he respected it as established precedent. it's been tested many times. he would follow it faithfully. here is the soundbite. >> if confirmed to the circuit, i would follow roe v. wade faithfully and fully. that would be binding precedent on the court. it's been decided by the supreme court. sfl >> i asked you your own opinion. >> i'm saying if i remember confirmed, i would follow it, it's been reaffirmed many times, including in planned parenthood. >> i understand what is your opinion. you are not on the bench yet. you've talked about these issues in the past to other people i'm sure. >> the supreme court has held repeatedly, senator, and i don't think it would be appropriate for me to give a personal view on that. >> now, the biggest problem with the process, with all due respect, is this is not about candor and accountability. these men and women all say the

same thing when you guys ask them these questions, and you can try to get him to go on record, but they learned that if you get out over your skis and say how you feel about things, you are at risk. so you probably won't get it revealed from him and any circuit court judge said they are going to respect stair deisis, it's when they get a chance to change it what would they do. >> once you are on the court, you are setting precedent. you are not following precedent. and certainly the president, our president, has said he would not nominate someone unless they were prepared to strike down row versus wade. >> i've heard you say that before. leonard leo told me, the head of the federal society who put this list together for the president that the president never asked anybody about their feelings on roe v. wade. just listen to you can believe me that he said it. >> in all of my dealings with the president, and in all of the meetings he's had with

perspective nominees, you mentioned three during the earlier process, the president's never asked a single nominee about roe v. wade or abortion or any other case. and he's never talked to me about it. >> once again my guidance on this is it's often what is not said in this particular process you have to pay attention to. would he be on that list if he had said to leonard leo or any of these other people in the midst of the conservative angle, i tell you what i would never overturn that case, i think it's good law. >> absolutely not. the president asked the federal society to put this list together. and the federal society knows what the president's commitment was. so saying the president has never asked about this is meaningless. those folks were vetted long before they made it in front of the president. >> otherwise they wouldn't be on the list. that is a fair point. i will tell you guys at home, seeing how you stayed up this late, stay up longer. read page 15 of the speech that kavanaugh gave to the american

enterprise institute about justin rhenquist. he talked about rhenquist's dissent in roe v. wade, and why he respected it at the time. he may have boxed himself in. we'll be talking about it a lot in the weeks ahead. i want to talk to you about something else, these kids are still separated well over 90% of the ones that the government has stripped from parents. they are going to miss the deadline that is court imposed. do you believe in your findings that the government has made the strides it needs to to create a process of putting these families back together? >> well, absolutely not. they are in a great state of confusion. that is why tomorrow is the deadline for the children who are under five. there were just over a hundred of those children. we are hearing that maybe half of them will be reunited with their parents. they called them unaccompanied minors, and they were sent into hhs, health and human services, just as if they had arrived without their parents. they didn't -- therefore, hhs

didn't have the information about their parents. they have had great difficulty figuring this out. that is why after here after two weeks they are still only 50 kids, a few more, are going tore connect -- to be connected. this was poorly planned all the way through. the fundamental fact, let's not forget as the administration unifies some of these kids, they still be insistening on a strategy of inflicting trauma on children in order to push a policy of deter recognizrence. that fundamental idea of inflicting trauma on children is a dark, dark position. no religious tradition, no moral code would allow you to say i'm going to injury these kids to send some political message. >> what can you do about it. >> we are going to support the flores decision, which says you

cannot establish internment camps for families. they said we are going to go from family separation to family incarceration. >> they are trying to box you in political politically. trump is saying if you care about the kids so much, relieve us of the flores decision. you are forcing us to separate. change that law, that will make it better. will you bite? >> well, not at all. there is no internment camp future going on here in terms of our support. there is a policy that worked very well, a program that worked very well, family case management program, and the inspector general of homeland security did an audit of it. found 100 %, not 99, not 98, 100% of the families showed up for their hearings. >> the administration did something with that program. >> they trashed it. they had a program that kept families together. treated them with respect until they got the hearing. they trashed that. >> by doing that they set themselves up for this

situation. i'm not saying set themselves um for failure, because i don't know that they see this as failure. that is a question for the other side. senator thank you for being with us. look forward to talking to you in the days, weeks, and months ahead with this process. so if confirmed, judge kavanaugh, what would he do with roe v. wade? i referred you to a speech, we are going to go a little bit deeper into it. i know i said it was homework. we are going to give you a break tonight and do your homework for you. we are going to show you what he said about the law and we have tapes. we also have a member of a group that is pouring lots of money into the effort to get this nomination through, and a man who says kavanaugh's selection poses a giant conflict of interest. you know what that makes for, a great debate. next. no. no, no, no, no, no. cancel. cancel. please. aaagh! being in the know is a good thing. that's why discover will alert you if your social security number is found on any one of thousands of risky sites.

into the effort to get this

all right. so the legal spin is going full speed. started even before we knew that judge brett kavanaugh was going to be president trump's nominee. there is a lot to get through. you've got the process, you've got the cases that kavanaugh has given us to look at. and we've got the kerconcerns o both sides. let's get after it. a lip episode ttle episode of c court. why you like kavanaugh as the pick? >> he's one of the most experienced judges on this list. and someone who is widely recognized as an expert, particularly on crucial issues of the constitutional limits on government, separation of

powers, the classes he taught at harvard and yale. and all those issues that come through the d.c. circuit where he sat. major broad constitutional questions. he has a record of almost 300 cases he's decided. so i think if there is anyone we have a real clear sense of what the judicial philosophy of, it's brett kavanaugh and it's a very solid record. >> counselor, from what you know, what do you not like? >> well, chris, the decisions on presidential power, kindiconfinf the reasonable balance to respect working people, questions about abortion, about healthcare. but the biggest issue an unprecedented conflict of interest in american history. you have a president who has been named, named a subject in a criminal investigation. those around him with guilty pleas under investigation, and he's naming the judge who could decide, be the deciding vote on

many of those legal issues. that -- >> so, wait, your argument is -- are you arguing against the specific nominee or any nominee? are you saying that he shouldn't pick a judge right now? >> both, chris. one is -- i'm not saying he shouldn't pick a judge. >> so it's not both. be very clear in cuomo's court. >> i'm going to be very clear, your honor, number one i think there is a conflict of interest presented for any judge under these -- under these circumstances, but what that means is, that whoever the justice nominee is, he needs to answer questions that they don't normally want to answer, he needs to agree to recuse and if he won't answer, i don't think he should be confirmed. but this judge, judge kavanaugh, he's a good man, but he is way outside of the mainstream. he has extreme views on presidential power that a president shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution. he questions -- >> so let's deal with that. >> the supreme court case law.

>> let's deal with that specifically. took him a while to get to it. that is what he's talking about. in 2009, we are not talking about a judicial system, i saw a lot on twitter about he decided that a president can't be subpoenaed none of that is true. he wrote an article for law review in 2009 where he said he doesn't believe a president should be bothered with any type of legal process during their tenure. he says, if you have a problem with him, congress should impeach. are you okay with that position? >> this is something if he's sitting on the court, he is going to reexamine that based on all of the arguments brought before him. >> how do you know? >> because this is what any judge does, even if it's something they have written on before. they are going to consider that based on the literally thousands of pages that are going to be presented to them in that case. i think the idea that the president couldn't appoint someone or they couldn't sit on the case, look, the remedy for that, if it were a real issue would be recusal. we had justice breyer who was nominated by clinton, and sat on

the clinton versus jones case, and ruled on that case, which ended up being unanimous. there is the concept that he would have to recuse simply by having been put on the court by this president is simply without precedent in our history. we have seen, again, that this happened many -- >> but you've got different facts here where you would have mueller, let's just say the most reasonable hypothetical, and please tell me if you differ, is mueller says i need you to testify. president says no. he says, well, then i'm going to have to and you and compel you to testify. they are going to say we don't think you can and usupboena us. now you have a guy sitting on the court who has written, and maybe the only one who has written anything that i know of specifically on the issue who sides with the president going into it, how do you feel about that as a conflict? >> i think there is the fact that someone has written on a topic does not make it a conflict of interest. we have a lot of justices on the supreme court who have written about cases. it doesn't mean they don't get

to decide a similar case because we know some of their thought process processes. >> we've never had a president who has been named a subject in a criminal investigation who has the people around him guilty pleas under investigation, he's talking about self pardons, ands, we've never had a president in that situation name a supreme court justice who could -- let me finish my sentence. no. president clinton was not a named subject in a criminal investigation at the time. bob mueller has said, president trump, you are a subject. that means the investigation is speeding down on trump. he's picking a judge in his own case. it's forum shopping. it's judge shopping. it is an unprecedented situation. contrary to the usual mumbo jumbo, and particularly here, where we have these extreme 2009 views, he disagrees with the unanimous clinton v jones court.

>> they don't have to in this process. >> that brings us to number two, if they won't answer the question, conflict recused, i don't want to answer those questions. >> he's not going to agree to recuse. >> if he doesn't do that, he shouldn't be considered. >> he can't answer the question. especially -- >> they can. they just don't. they could be completely candid, they just choose not to. >> that hasn't been the position of justices from ginsburg on. as a legal ethics thing, i cannot prejudge a case. i may think i know where i'm going to go, but i can't prejudge it. >> this is different. it's answering about his writings. >> the fact that -- he can speak about his writings, but that doesn't actually determine what he's going to do in a case before him. all of that aside, look, you say this is -- he is the lone justice who would believe that way, then what are you worried about? it will be an 8-1 decision, that will solve itself.

>> what may be difficult for you in reconciling this as an advocate of his, will be this is so different than his posture back in '98 when he was working for ken starr is he was such a bulldog on the most tawdry types of invasion into a president's life legally during his tenure, and then for him to write in 2009, he doesn't think that clinton should have been exposed to that. what does that tell you about the man? if he was so willing to do something so whole heaheartedly thinks is wrong, what does that tell you about him? >> i don't think that is a conflict. we don't know the terms of the internal role of crafting the things. >> you see the questions that he wrote up for bill clinton? did you see those questions that he wrote up for him? i wouldn't even talk like that in a locker room as we've learned as now some type of parallel, you know, some parallel rules for parlance with men. he wrote some of the most tawdry, ugly questions to form perjury traps which i'm not

saying weren't a part of his job. to now say the president shouldn't be exposed to that is a hypocrisy. >> if this comes bch the court, there will be the opportunity for recusal motions. but the question here, and today is, is this someone who is going to be confirmed to the supreme court? that is an entirely separate question. and he's not going to be able to kme comment on what he would do in this specific case. no judge can comment on that. >> he will not comment on a specific case of controversy. we know that because that has become the established tradition, and we never get around to changing the process, because it always plays to the side of the benefit of those in power, and they don't want to stop that. >> we've never had a circumstance like this one, chris. we haven't had a president who has been in this situation. we haven't had a president whose lawyers have taken these extreme and bizarre positions that we know -- >> what is the remedy here? he's not going to recuse himself. he won't answer the questions. >> i don't agree with car--

unprecedented circumstances call for unprecedented remedies. he must answer questions in the senate. >> he answers but not to your satisfaction. >> if he doesn't answer to my satisfaction, i would demand and i hope the senators will demand that he reconfuse cuuse. if it doesn't wait, this supreme court, which already has a black mark next to it about -- >> merrick gar glandgarland, no it was an unconstitutional improper act by the senate majority leader, it was wrong. it already has one strike, this will be a second strike on the supreme court. and you know, when we are in court, chris, we can't argue directly to opposing counsel. i'll say through the judge, i implore that as part of making the garland debacle right, let this nominee, let's all agree, he should answer these questions

or if he doesn't want to answer, he should recuse. >> the reason why in court -- first of all, thank you for a spirited debate -- is not to each other, it's because it's for the benefit of the jury. and this is going to be for the senators. it's going to be about how they decide to do their job and elections have consequences. that is why this president is getting to pick these judges and they will be measured by what they do in this process as well. i appreciate you giving your take. thank you very much. norm, always always, best hair in the business. my next guest has been tweeting up a storm. hillary clinton's former spo spokesman calls brett kavanaugh, a wolf in wolf's clothing. he's here with the stop kavanaugh mission. next. (director) cut! nice, candace, but this time bold. did someone say "bold?" (gasping) starkist jalapeo tuna in a pouch! loaded with bold flavor. just tear, eat... mmmmm. and go bold! try all of my bold creations pouches!

(honking) when your craving strikes, you need your wing nut. ( ♪ ) no one can totally satisfy a craving, quite like your wing nut.

no one can totally satisfy a craving, a peaceful night sleep without only imagine... frequent heartburn waking him up. now that dream is a reality. nexium 24hr stops acid before it starts for all-day, all-night protection. can you imagine 24 hours without heartburn? well, esurance makes it simple and affordable. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company.

click or call. paying too much for insurance that isn't the right fit? well, esurance makes finding the right coverage easy. in fact, drivers who switched from geico to esurance saved an average of $412. that's auto and home insurance for the modern world. esurance. an allstate company. click or call.

esurance. an allstate company. does your business internet provider promise a lot? let's see who delivers more. comcast business gives you gig-speed in more places. the others don't. we offer up to 6 hours of 4g wireless network backup. everyone else, no way. we let calls from any of your devices come from your business number. them, not so much. we let you keep an eye on your business from anywhere. the others? nope! get internet on our gig-speed network and add voice and tv for $34.90 more per month. call or go on line today. . we don't know about the ultimate impact of president trump's words or any of his policies, but his putting two judges on the supreme court will cement his place in history. and this time with brett kavanaugh, he chose a man that went after bill clinton with

unique zeal as a pitbull for ken starr. brett kavanaugh would not have been a pick for hillary clinton had she become president. let's get a take from the man that was the clinton secretary. biggest concern? >> this is somebody that presents a lot of fertile territory in terms of lines of criticism. there were a lot of people on this list that we know would have had the same positions on issues as brett kavanaugh would have ruled the same way on a lot of core issues, but don't have the track record or the cases that would sort of evidence their position on those issues. brett kavanaugh is an open book. we want to talk about key issues like abortion, and the affordable care act. he's very explicit on those two issues. we know his hostility to roe. he doesn't meet that standard if she's true to that standard that she articulated last weekend.

he gave a speech blasting john roberts on the rationale he use today up hold the law. we know that brett kavanaugh believes it's unconstitutional to try to ban assault weapons. we know that he's against the consumer probation bureau. we know he's against the alabama net neutrality policy. that doesn't get into the issue of debating about his views on the executive power and views that the president cannot be indicted and he should be able to fire a special investigator at any moment for any reason. there is like almost an embarrassment of riches when it comes to opposing this guy. that is why i think if democrats were forlorn prior to today and thought that there was nothing we could do because we didn't have the majority in the senate, i think tomorrow they need to wake up with a sense of fervor. there is an opportunity to defeat this nominee. pick your reason, we can unite or 49 democrats in opposition, and i think we have a good chance of peeling off one or two republicans. >> on the basis of what, other than the speculation about roe v. wade and how that would go,

a and. >> the two most out spoken people on the issue of abortion were brett kavanaugh and amy barrett. these are people i know, i assume the federal society has vetted them for a reason, because they would have been loyal anti-roe votes. they didn't have the record in their cases to prove it. bread kavanaugh does. he ruled just last year to try to help the trump administration block immigrant woman that was trying to exercise her right to abortion. they were trying to keep had your in custody. in addition to the speech he gave where he singled out justin rhenquist. >> depends how you look at the -- i hear what you are saying about the garza case, and ordinarily we stay out of the weeds, now all we have is the weeds. who knows what questions he's going to answer. the process is totally corrupt as far as i'm concerned, left and right. when your side gets their people up there, they ask the same

questions. >> the process is a joke. >> nobody answers any questions. they keep that process because it works to when you are in power and they preserve it for that. however, let's get back to what we are talking about. here is what he said in the speech, on page 15, if you want to take a look at it on line. he's talking about rhenquist's dissent. and this is what he said. rhenquist was not -- he doesn't say he was right, he says, his dissent was based on to justify an unenumerated right in the constitution you have to show that it is rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people, and it wasn't then rhenquist reasoned, so he couldn't get behind roe v. wade. however, if that is what he's so impressed by, you've had 45 years since then where it's been ep accepted. you have over 60% of men and women say roe v. wade is good law. if this is what his basis is of rewarding rhenquist, how does he go against roe v. wade when it would pass his own standard.

>> that is a fair question. he praises justice rhenquist for stemming the tide against this flow of unenumerated rights. this is basically the whole rational for the federal society even existing. this whole conservative movement of which it is now having its climax moment here, where it could retake the court, it all grew up out of their resistance to the war in court era what they believed there was the efforts to desegregate schools. and. >> loving versus virginia. >> for him to single this out, it's a wink, wink, by the way the timing of it came just a couple of months before he was added to the short list. kavanaugh was not on the original short list that donald trump issued in 2016. these guys on the short list including brett kavanaugh were giving speeches on purpose, sending signals to get on this list.

and in many ways, i think that the federal society is now a victim of its own success. you heard the judicial crisis network just trying to argue that, oh, judge kavanaugh's writings on presidential authority and whether the president can be indicted don't tell you anything about how he would rule, that is ridiculous. it's all written there in plain english for anyone to read and parse. the public will understand it. he'll be asked those questions in a hearing. and the federal society is telling us don't believe our eyes in terms of what we are reading about what judge kavanaugh wrote. the federal society is a victim of its own success. they created a system where they want the people that are the surest things. he's the surest thing he has a body of work. he's had to rule on the issues they care about, they know he's going to be a sure thing. they have to defend the unpopular stances he's taken in the last few years as a in this confirmation setting and it's an uncomfortable situation for them. two other issues that could be wild cards, number one is work -- there is a lot of papers

related to his work on the starr committee that have not been out yet. there is going to be a big effort to try to get the national archives to release all those documents, they are going to have to go through them and see what has to be redacted and then his e-mails from the time in the bush white house. it was kagan put forward, 170,000 some pages that required a lot of man hours to go through that. mitch mcconnell indicated that he was privately urging the trump white house to look away from brett kavanaugh because he was worried the document production alone with would delay a hearing. >> grassley is in charge. >> as aggressive as anybody in forcing past nominees to produce everything. he would be a hypocrite now if he doesn't insist on the same standard. one of brett kavanaugh's mentors in life and his career as a judge is a guy by the name of alex kosinski. a judge on the ninth circuit had to resign because of metoo

movement. he behaved inappropriately in chambers, and he had to resign in disgrace. brett kavanaugh is somebody that is friends and was a mentor and personally clerked for alex kosinski. i think there are going to be a lot of senators that want to know what he knew and when he knew it. >> if it were happening when he was there, fair line of question, him being responsible for someone else's actions, not fair. >> not only was he a clerk in 1990, but brett kavanaugh was a -- considered in the judicial world as a feeder judge for anthony kennedy, who he clerked for on the supreme court. as is kosinski. oftentimes kavanaugh would interview prospective clerks that kennedy might have clerk for him on the supreme court. and he would send a lot of clerks to brett kavanaugh to interview for clerk ships with anthony kennedy. the likelihood that brett kavanaugh knew about the miss behavior is very high. i think he's going to have to

answer questions about that. >> i agree there are legitimate questions. we cannot impugn kavanaugh with what he did unless we have knowledge of fact of what he knew at the time. >> we will only know that if we ask the questions. >> you have to give him the benefit of the doubt until he answers them. brian, thank you very much. i appreciate it. so brett kavanaugh's confirmation is not the only battle that trump is fighting. he's got a big immigration war on his hands. separated families are being kept apart by his administration in defiance of a court deadline that will come in go in hours. what are they doing about it? there is lots to take on in a great debate next. i visualize travel rewards.

i receive travel rewards. going new places. (oh!) going out for a bite. going anytime. rewarded! learn more at theexplorercard.com it can detect a threat using ai, and respond 60 times faster. it lets you know where your data lives, down to the very server. it keeps your insights from prying eyes, so they're used by no one else but you. it is... the cloud. the ibm cloud. the cloud that's built for all your apps. ai ready. secure to the core. the ibm cloud is the cloud for smarter business.

all right. kids have been taken from their parents. overwhelmingly, the american people say this is wrong. the president agreed. he backed off, which we almost never see him do. he put out an executive order that wasn't worth the paper it was written on and the situation has stayed the same, and in some ways it is worse. why? let's bring in people to debate this right now. we have john fredericks, and

john pierre is here. that is the best french i speak. so first of all, do you disagree with anything i just said, what they did was found wrong by the american people, the president backed off, he promised to make it better and it hasn't happened. all facts? >> no he's making it better now. the majority of the infants rb reunited with their parents. that continues to happen. they tried very hard to make the two-week deadline. they have reunited a hundred of them. but the program was made, chris, to be a deterrent. they've had to fix it, but the -- >> so you admit, hold on, john, john -- >> gone down 20%. that was the objective of it. >> john. >> go ahead. >> hold on. so you admit that the reason that the president separated kids from their parents was to have a message of deter recognize? >> of course it was for det

deterrence. >> jeff sessions disagrees with you. >> i'm telling you what the process was designed as a deterrent. and basically what the administration says is -- >> not what they said. >> no tolerance. >> that is what they say. >> the laws work in the united states is if you get apprehended and you are arrested with the minor children in tow, they take the children. >> i get it. >> that is how it's happening right now in manhattan, right now in your hometown. >> no, because if they are going to arrest -- >> it happens everywhere. >> if they are going to arrest you for a simple misdemeanor they are not going to take your kids. they are treating it like a major crime. i finally heard a republican say the truth, that they are taking these kids away from their parents to send a message of deterrence. it's not just about prosecuting the law as it is written. what do you think of that?

>> i think it's shocking to hear, but it's absolutely true. and the way they were able to do that, chris, was by dehumanizing a group of people. by the president calling them animals or infestations, that is what you do with when you want to dehumanize a group of people is you do these things and then you can do whatever you want to them, which is absolutely abhorrent and immoral, and it set us into a human teatarian crisis. there is more than 90% of them who are still somewhere around the country -- >> that is true. >> we don't know where, and tomorrow the deadline was to reunify the tender age kids under five years old, 101 of them, we found out last week that 38 of them had parents, 19 of them had been deported. the other 19 did, the administration doesn't know where they are, because they were released and didn't keep track of them. when i get a ups package, i

could track that package down to the minute. you get a tracking number and they cannot tell us where they -- these kids are, that they ripped away from their parents. >> the point of the process with the package is for you to know where it is and for it to have timely differ delivery. john, you were saying that's not the point here, they don't want an efficient process of knowing where these kids are, an efficient reunification, that would spoil the message, wouldn't it? that would take away the deterrence, that wouldn't scare people as much. >> you can't -- chris, you can't confuse incompetence with an act of wrongdoing. all right? taking children and flying them a thousand miles away was simply an incompetent act because they captured so many people they didn't realize the number they would have and they didn't have the facilities set up, and they had to separate them just like they do again when somebody is

arrested tonight in brooklyn for shoplifting if they have their children, and they are handcuffed, the children are taken away. they are not taken with them to jail. >> that's not true. i know for a fact that's not true. >> with them to jail. they are taken with them to jail. >> they look for next of kin. they say who else is in the household, they see how long they are going to hold the person. a misdemeanor like shoplifting. >> if there is no one there, they get taken into child services. >> if they do, they know where the kid is, john. if a kid gets put into the system, you know where they are. but here you don't. i wonder why. >> that is incompetence. >> why isn't it just them not giving a damn about where the kids go? >> i don't think that is it. the original intent of zero tolerance was to stop illegals from coming over the border. >> you said it was to send a message of deterrence, very

different mission. >> if you come over the border illegal illegally, you are going to be arrested, that is a deterrence, if your children are with you, they can't go with you to jail. that is the way the u.s. system works. as a result of that, illegal crossings were down 20% in june. that is the objective of it. >> they have no plan, no plan to reunify these kids with their parents. that is the sad part about this. that is what makes this so morally bankrupt. >> we'll see what happens when they miss the deadline, see what happens next. john, thank you very much for making the case. always a pleasure. appreciate it. >> thanks. >> thank you chris. >> big story, can't give it short shrift, rescuers in thailand racing to free the last four boys and their coach trapped in a flooded cave, just in the last hour, new information on the kids that have made it out. live in thailand, a monsoon watch next. i have to tell you something incredible. capital one has partnered with hotels.com

to give venture cardholders 10 miles on every dollar they spend at thousands of hotels. all you have to do is pay with this at hotels.com/venture. 10 miles per dollar? that is incredible. brrrrr! i have the chills. because you're so excited? because ice... is cold. and because of all those miles. obviously. what's in your wallet? obviously. now there's armor all wash wipes with lift and clean technology. extra large wipes that lift and remove dust, dirt and grime.

no hose, no bucket, no problem. just wipe, to spot clean bird and bug splatters in seconds or to wash and wax the entire car in minutes. also try new armor all ultra shine wax wipes. for a brilliant shine with that same wipe and walk away convenience. clean, shine and protect, anytime anywhere with armor all ultra shine exterior wash and wax wipes. this one's below market price and has bluetooth. same here, but this one has leather seats! use the cars.com app to compare price, features and value.

breaking news tonight from thailand. a tie navy official telling cnn the rescue operation has resumed. four kids and one adult are still in the under ground cave. right now, there is heavy rain rolling in.

we keep reminding this is monsoon season. and the amount of water and mud that can fill up in the cave very quickly is a scary prospect. david mckenzie is in thailand with the details. good morning thanks for being there. what do we know? >> what we know is the teams are in the cave system in the mountain behind me. as you can see the rain is falling down on my head. that's a worrying sign. now the next step will be to see if the elite divers and the team of about 18 can get the next boys out. and then the coach. the world is being riveted by the story. the good news the eight boys that have come out are in good spirits. they asked if they could have chocolate in the hospital. and had to get the doctors to cut off the chocolate supply because they are not ready to take on proper food. it shows you how successful the rescuers have been in getting them out. >> what a story about how they

made it for so long in the cave and the big concern is obviously time. because that rain can go from what it is now to wind whipped, funneling of thousands of gallons into the cave. what is it in terms of time? >> the time window is shutting. certainly. over night we were here the rain came pouring down. bucketing down. in the mountain it's a catch man area. the water can stream in to ta cave faster than the water they are pumping out. if that happens, it could complicate the divers rescue mission. because the flow of the water will be stronger. the water will be at higher levels. if they can work quickly, this is the best time to get them out before the rains set in. >> obviously time is of the essence. god forbid they're in there and something goes wrong. that have a lot to have balance.

thank you very much. that's ail for us tonight. cnn tonight with don lemon is right up. no. no, no, no, no, no. cancel. cancel. please. aaagh! being in the know is a good thing. that's why discover will alert you if your social security number is found on any one of thousands of risky sites. (dnice, candace, but this time bold. did someone say "bold?" (gasping) starkist jalapeo tuna in a pouch! loaded with bold flavor. just tear, eat... mmmmm.

and go bold! try all of my bold creations pouches! at&t provides edge-to-edge intelligence, covering virtually every part of your business. so this won't happen. because you've made sure this sensor and this machine are integrated. atta, boy. & yes, some people assign genders to machines. & with edge-to-edge intelligence, you'll know your customers love this color, & don't love this one. never getting grape again. & you can adjust in near real time. & if someone tries to breach your firewall in london & you start to panic... don't. you've got allies on the outside, & security algorithms on the inside. & if it's jammed up here, & it's hot in here.

& you know both those things, you can do this. & your flowers won't wilt. at&t provides edge to edge intelligence. it can do so much for your business, the list goes on and on. that's the power of &. & when her patient's blood pressure drops, she can share the information with...

to keep our community safe. before you do any project big or small, pg&e will come out and mark your gas and electric lines so you don't hit them when you dig. call 811 before you dig,

and make sure that you and your neighbors are safe. this is "cnn tonight" i'm don lemon. president trump athounss his pick to replace justice anthony kennedy on the supreme court. >> it is my honor and privilege to announce i will nominate judge brett kavanaugh. to the united states supreme court. >> but fasten your seat belts because this is just the beginning. it's only the beginning. those who are familiar with kavanaugh are calling him, quote, an unrelenting, unapologetic defender of presidential power, some of what we just discussed there. so what will his nomination mean for the russia investigation? get ready for a battle. that's going to last all summer. tens of millions of dollars spent.